Jivin J’s Life Links 7-7-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- A teenager may face feticide charges after crashing her car into a tree and killing a passenger’s unborn child at 36-weeks. She told authorities she had been drinking before the accident.
- Some local Albuquerque media outlets have covered the attack on abortion protester Bud Shaver by a post-abortive woman:
Albuquerque PD said a criminal summons will be filed for the woman in the video.She will be charged with one count of aggravated battery and one count of battery.
APD expects those charges to be filed on Thursday and at that point they will release the woman’s name.
See the video report from KOB.com:
- Don’t see a mainstream media headline like this too often: “Pro-abortion group asks judge to block Texas sonogram law.”
- An Oregon judge will order a pregnant woman who was arrested for damaging a hotel room to be committed to a mental health facility. The woman requested an abortion and police suspect she was trying to set herself on fire when she was damaging the hotel.
Jul.07, 2011 1:00 pm |
Blogs |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
That first story…
I hate to say it, but I don’t think someone with “mature” thought processing would have gotten in the car with a drunk driver. Especially when you have your unborn baby to consider. That was just reckless on her part. Unfortunately, her unborn baby paid the price for her decision to get in the car with someone who had been drinking…tragic.
I fail to understand why you can be charged for killing a fetus in a negligent drunk driving accident but that same fetus can be killed in a clinic perfectly legally. Doesn’t make any sense at all.
It’s based on the choice of the pregnant woman Jack, that’s why it’s different.
Reality, if the humanity of a child depends on whether his or her mother wanted them to live, then I would still not be human. No matter the stage of development, human rights can’t depend on how loved or wanted someone is.
I answered the question you posed Jack. Anything else is an argument about the whys and wherefores.
Reality, my question wasn’t about the legal reasons. It’s more of a moral query. Almost everybody would be sad for this child, but pro-choicers would not care if this had been aborted even though the end result is exactly the same. Is that ethically consistent? How can human rights depend on who loves and wants us? That’s very uncomfortable for us who were never wanted.
Oh, okay, Reality. I guess when the mother decides she wants her baby, it magically becomes a life worth nurturing and protecting. If she DOESN’T want her baby, then it’s not a baby, just a thing she can have dismembered and thrown out like garbage. Yes, that makes a lot of sense.
What a crock.
Funny how proaborts complain about religious prolifers, and then give themselves the God-like ability to change a blob into a REAL BOY!
Not quite Mary Lee. Until birth the fetus is a potential person. Therefore it is up to the woman to decide whether or not to proceed with the pregnancy.
If a woman has chosen to proceed and then someone does something which causes the loss of that potential person then it may be that a crime has been committed.
If a woman chooses not to proceed then she can have a legal termination of the potential person at her choice.
There is no such thing as a ‘god-like ability’.
No, Reality, it is a PERSON WITH POTENTIAL. Unborn babies are persons because science and logic tell us that. They are not potential persons….they ARE persons. They look and behave as all persons do at that stage. And two year olds are not worth more than our babies in utero. The proabort mind is dangerous. It either IS a person or it ISN’T. Even other pro-aborts admit that these are babies; what it comes down to is…..they are human persons who deserve to live no matter what their mother “decides.” What a sick, dangerous way of thinking. It just makes me sad. How anyone can devalue anyone at any stage of life…..that abortion advocates think it’s a right to kill baby persons and incinerate their little bodies. Unbelievable.
The pre-born have zero cognition Mary Lee. About three hours after birth a baby can recognise it’s mother. At six months if they can’t see mum, she doesn’t exist. At nine months if they can’t see mum, they remember that she does exist.
What does cognition have to do with anything? Your argument is functionalist and ludicrous. I know “born” people who have “zero cognition.” Should we kill them too? Or is it about LOCATION? Please take a biology class, then a course in logic.
If someone is born with zero cognition and is going to remain that way for some medical reason then they are pretty much dead anyway.
There may be certain selected elements of biology and logic which you feel support your position but the reality is that abortion is one of those topics which are decided on biology, logic, history and philosophy.
If you wish to base a society purely on biology and logic without taking history and philosophy into consideration then you are creating a society which I would not like to live in.
Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
You reality are an idiot. Who told you such a idiotic thing about it taking 3 hours to recognize their mothers. Research has shown for years that newborns recognize their own mothers voice from anyone else’s right after delivery. They have heard their mothers voice for many months in utero. If mother and baby are given skin-to-skin contact in the first 1-2 hours they recognize their mothers and fathers scent, making an imprint on their brain as they begin to bond. Research has shown breastfed babies will recognize the scent of their own mother’s milk over another women’s breastmilk. As someone who actually attended many deliveries, saw newborns staring into their mothers faces, eyes wide open, demonstrating voice recognition, seen them bonding skin-to-skin with their mothers then suckling at their mother’s breast and also have seen babies go into distress and heard them wailing when they are taken away from their mothers, I’ll take my experience in labor and delivery and my own experience as a mother over your ”Dead Babies R Us” mindset any day of the week.
“You reality are an idiot.”
Pretty sure this violates some rule around here.
The pre-born have zero cognition Mary Lee.
As evidenced by what? You can do a simple google search to find the amazing research scientists have done regarding babies in the womb relating to cognition, particularly twin studies. It’s fascinating, really.
It’s ok Hal, I really don’t mind what people say about me.
Prolifer L, you are a little bit right – I should have clarified that by recognise I meant visually. Of course they would recognise voice. And yes, after 2-3 hours of skin and scent contact there is an imprint. And of course the milk thing.
I didn’t actually say that any of that was not the case now did I.
There is a difference between cognition and instinctive actions and reactions Kris.
Yes, Reality there is. But, where did I imply that I was speaking of “instinctive actions and reactions?”
@ Reality
The odd thing is that if I were to climb into a car and hit a pregnant woman who was on her way to obtain an abortion, killing her unborn child in the process, I’d more than likely be charged with a crime even though she was going to have that child killed in a few short minutes. It would be even more ironic if I was the doctor to perform her abortion for her, as I’d be charged with a crime for killing that child via an accident even though I would have killed her unborn child, anyway.
Does that make sense to you?
You may not think you did Kris, but you showed nothing regarding cognition. Therefore instinct is implied.
Yes and no Some Guy. The scenario you pose backs up all the things I’ve been saying about things not being black and white and claims of pure ‘logic’ and ‘biology’ not being 100% applicable in all circumstances.
Reality I do apologize for calling you “an idiot”. Hal you are right, sorry mods. I should try to keep my anger in check. Reality when you try to justify the search and destroy mission of abortion to mutilate a human pre-born baby by minimizing their “cognition and recognition” that was too much for me to swallow, especially when I have been right there after babies have been delivered and actually seen their awesome “cognition and recognition”. BTW, newborn babies are able to see 6-8 inches away, about the distance they are from their mother’s face when they are breastfeeding.
You may not think you did Kris, but you showed nothing regarding cognition. Therefore instinct is implied.
What are you talking about? Are you confusing my post with ProliferL’s? I never showed you anything specifically. What I said was:
You can do a simple google search to find the amazing research scientists have done regarding babies in the womb relating to cognition, particularly twin studies. It’s fascinating, really.
Again, where have I implied instinct in that statement?
And, again, what evidence do you have to make the assertion that “the pre-born have zero cognition?”
“What I said was:
You can do a simple google search to find the amazing research scientists have done regarding babies in the womb relating to cognition, particularly twin studies. It’s fascinating, really”
yes, you said that, but you didn’t show me anything.
yes, you said that, but you didn’t show me anything.
Oh Reality. You made the assertion first, here. The onus is on you. What evidence do you have that the pre-born have zero cognition. You made the assertion. You didn’t show me anything.
Gotta go to bed, have a good night.
JackBorsch: Almost everybody would be sad for this child, but pro-choicers would not care if this had been aborted even though the end result is exactly the same. Is that ethically consistent? How can human rights depend on who loves and wants us? That’s very uncomfortable for us who were never wanted.
Jack, for a 36 week fetus, far, far fewer people are going to be pro-choice as far as abortion in general. Most fetuses at 36 weeks do have measures of sentience, emotion, personality, etc.
I don’t know your situation, but at birth society said you had rights, that you were not simply “never wanted” or “not wanted.”
About three hours after birth a baby can recognise it’s mother.
All three of my children recognized me by my voice as soon as they exited the womb. I know this because they turned their heads in the direction of my voice and focused intently on my face, because they had been hearing my voice for months inside the womb.
And our third child even focused on daddy’s voice more intently than our other two kids did. That was pretty cool. :)
BTW, newborn babies are able to see 6-8 inches away, about the distance they are from their mother’s face when they are breastfeeding.
Yep.
Our third child also focused on light/dark contrasts of objects before we ever left the hospital.
I love babies. :)
Until birth the fetus is a potential person.
Ah, so very scientific.
Jack you said this
I fail to understand why you can be charged for killing a fetus in a negligent drunk driving accident but that same fetus can be killed in a clinic perfectly legally. Doesn’t make any sense at all.”
Its called legitimate authority. Your husband can have sex with you, but it doesn’t mean everyone can. The state can put a needle in your arm but the guy down the street can’t. We all know the end result is never all that matters. You don’t look at two women one who had sex willingly and one forcefully and say, it’s the same thing there is the same result. A mother has the sole legitimate authority to end a pregnancy because forcing her to continue that pregnancy violates her core rights.
It’s easy Kris. Look up what cognition means and then take at look at fetal development as well as post-birth functions.
I’d already explained that when I said recognise I meant visually Kel. Hence “I know this because they turned their heads in the direction of my voice and focused intently on my face” – and about three hours later they made visual recognition of you.
I am not disagreeing with what you’ve said.
I’m cool Prolifer L., you didn’t do anything offensive.
“search and destroy mission of abortion to mutilate” – emotive and untrue.
“a human pre-born baby by minimizing their “cognition and recognition” that was too much for me to swallow,”
and
“especially when I have been right there after babies have been delivered and actually seen their awesome “cognition and recognition”.
don’t add up. You describe two different states, pre-born (which you can’t see) and post-born (which you have).
“BTW, newborn babies are able to see 6-8 inches away, about the distance they are from their mother’s face when they are breastfeeding.” – absolutely.
Yes and no Some Guy. The scenario you pose backs up all the things I’ve been saying about things not being black and white and claims of pure ‘logic’ and ‘biology’ not being 100% applicable in all circumstances.
‘Yes and no’ is a non-answer. Given that you said that the unborn are non-persons, your response to my question should have either been a simple ‘no’ or a ‘yes’ followed by a liberal amount of justification. But I won’t press that issue any further.
To switch gears, murder is not murder (or manslaughter or homicide) based on who is doing the killing. If a mother kills her born child, is that more permissible than it is if a complete stranger would have killed that child? If not, then why do you set a seemingly different set of criteria in abortion, where it’s okay for a woman to kill (or have the killing be done at her discretion) but not okay for someone else to kill at their discretion? Why aren’t either both right or both wrong? It’s a question worth consideration.
“Jack, for a 36 week fetus, far, far fewer people are going to be pro-choice as far as abortion in general. Most fetuses at 36 weeks do have measures of sentience, emotion, personality, etc.
I don’t know your situation, but at birth society said you had rights, that you were not simply “never wanted” or “not wanted.””
You say that I gained rights at birth from society. Why birth? That’s an arbitrary mark right there. A distinct human being is formed at conception, why are there 40 weeks where that life doesn’t deserve protection? I don’t see how society can refuse to confer rights onto that human being simply because it is too helpless to live outside it’s mother’s body yet. Why in the world does a little more development and a trip down the birth canal make a difference on whether I deserved to live? That is a violation of human rights there. But unfortunately that is currently the law. So it becomes solely the woman’s (not society’s) job to confer rights to a human being before birth. You (maybe not you, but choicers in general) will then say that fetal life doesn’t gain worth unless it is a wanted pregnancy. I don’t see the logic. After a certain point of development a human being is magically worthy of rights?
Society was required to protect me outside the womb, though my mother would have loved to see me dead. But society was not required to protect me for most of the time before my birth, where my only worth was if my mother wanted me alive (or in reality, was too religious to get an abortion). None of that makes sense to me. A whole class of people is at the mercy of whoever is carrying them, with no rights, until some arbitrary cut-off point where suddenly social contract kicks in and they are deserving of human rights. It’s insanity to me.
“Its called legitimate authority. Your husband can have sex with you, but it doesn’t mean everyone can. The state can put a needle in your arm but the guy down the street can’t. We all know the end result is never all that matters. You don’t look at two women one who had sex willingly and one forcefully and say, it’s the same thing there is the same result. A mother has the sole legitimate authority to end a pregnancy because forcing her to continue that pregnancy violates her core rights.”
Legitimate authority has to prioritize human rights, else it would be chaos. I have the right to free speech unless I am inciting violence or other caveats that violate other more important rights (the right to be free of harm). I have the right to have sex with whoever I want, unless they are unwilling, because then my right to bodily autonomy is violating someone else’s right. Human rights are prioritized and curtailed where they directly interfere with and harm someone else. With abortion, the fetal right to life is superseded by the woman’s right to bodily autonomy, and that is just backwards. We all have the right to life
It’s alright Some Guy, I don’t feel pressed.
“Does that make sense to you?” – yes it does. The law says that a woman can choose to terminate a pregnancy via abortion. It does not allow for a pregnancy to be terminated by being hit by a car. That’s the law, no ‘liberal justification’ necessary.
You are right though, it would be quite ironic if the aborting doctor was the driver. Therein lies the whole blurred edges thing which is life.
Jack, that was very, very well said.
Reality….there is no “blurred edges.” It is either okay to kill another human or is isn’t. This is not a “gray area” issue. I do believe you mean well, and I understand why you say what you do—because I used to believe the same thing. But it comes down to this: Nobody has the right to kill their own baby because they are “more important” than their child. The right to live trumps ALL.
Reality, studies, and common anecdotes (sp?) Have long shown cognative function in inutero babies, as well as premature birthed babies. Babies from a very young age. Cognition being defined as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgement is much different than sentients or self-awareness. Humans are not sentient or self-aware for many months after birth, the average being around 18 months for a child to demonstrate true self-awareness, but by the end of the 1st trimester cognition is already well formed. Inutero babies are aware of their surroundings, able to preceive intrusion and changes, and can move to or from with purposeness. By well before viability a baby can respond to external (from outside the mother’s body) factors such as bright lights, loud noises, and they interact with those external as well as internal factors. What’s more is they show distinct differences in those reactions, showing personality and characteristics of an individual. Some babies actively avoid ultrasound for instance, while others move towards it (different reactions means it’s not an ‘instinct’ but is purposeful). Twins interact with each other inutero. And inutero babies with people outside the womb too. My 1st baby loved to be touched, and from an early age would move towards palpation, by me or others. He would stay there (close to the outside) and be still as long as you’d stroke him, then he would move back to a more typical centered position. He liked the doppler and ultrasound, always moving right towards it (we got some great pics!). On the other hand my 2nd pregnancy, my daughter was not fond of external touch, or the doppler or ultrasound. She would actively move away from palpation and the sound waves (she we did not get good pics of). Even in very late pregnancy, when she had little room to manuever she would squirm away from palpation so you couldn’t easily find her arms or legs, and even during delivery she actively squirmed to avoid the monitors. What’s more babies have been shown to *remember* inutero experiances. Even after several months it’s been shown that babies will react with remembrance when exposed to a specific smell (taste), sounds, or touch. This can be confirmed for both negative and positive associations. For instance a baby that startled inutero to a loud noise shows a hightened startle reflex to loud noises once born, but a baby will respond to a remembered song by calming down. Cognative function doesn’t exist on the same level as an adults, but nor is the cognative function of a toddler or even teenager on the same level as adults. But saying they have ‘zero’ cognative function is showing extreme ignorance of known biological development. Or, and I find this more likely, you’re just hoping no one would call you out on it. They aren’t human vegetables, even at a only a few weeks old, and as any mother of more than one pregnancy can tell you, they show distinct differences and preferences long before birth, or even viability.
Jespren thank you for your awesome post, beautifully written. I indeed noticed these personality differences in my two children, the way they responded to touch and movement in utero and outside the uterus. You just reminded me of something I had forgotten. My oldest liked to be rocked in the rocking chair pre-born and born and would calm down and go to sleep. My youngest would let me know he did not like being rocked in the rocker by becoming agitated as a pre-born. Guess what? He NEVER liked to be rocked to sleep, would become more agitated and I would just have to lie him down in his crib, let him fuss and fall asleep on his own. My oldest would always fall asleep in the car as an infant but my youngest would never fall asleep in the car just like when they were as pre-borns, they asserted their distinctly different personalities. Thank you so much for reminding me of this.
Anyway on to the next Reality “Dead Babies R Us” argument. That one is “dead in the water” (pun intended). LOL!
Prolifer L, thanks! And thanks for sharing the corroberating (sp? I think I butchered that word) evidence ;) . My favorite inutero story to recall actual my two interacting while my 2nd was still inutero. My son is a cuddler and he *had* to sit on my lap, even when there wasn’t much lap left. My daughter was *very* active inutero. So my son would be pressed up against me snuggleing and Bella (inutero) would start moving around so he’d be laying against squirming baby. So Thomas being Thomas he’d elbow her in annoyance, and she’d kick him right back! This would go on as long as i’d let it, with him trying to elbow her back and her trying to kick him off my lap. So funny. They even did it while he was curled up next to me asleep! They love each other dearly but they still push and fight over who gets mommy’s lap (or the much more coverted ‘mommy milk’!)
Oh, and sometimes it wasn’t even him who started it. He’d just be sitting there, a noticable presence and she would go from being still to one well-aimed kick right at his back. Meaning? A very clear: get off!
LOL! Thanks Jespren. Sounds like you have a strong-willed second child like I have. They are a riot! You will have to channel all that energy but it will be a great but sometimes a difficult adventure. I think that I never prayed so much in my life as I did raising my children but especially praying for wisdom dealing with my #2. God bless you. If not for the book The Strong-Willed Child by Dr. James Dobson and later a book by Kendra Smiley and her son Aaron called Aaron’s Way I think I would have thought that I was going to lose my mind.
Actually Prolife L (so far at least) I have 2 little spitfires! My 1st is over the top outgoing, energenic, willful, and never met something he couldn’t climb! My 2nd thinks she should be able to do everything by herself (at 15 months), determined to a fault, and has no sense of self preservation! And neither one of them has ever met a ‘stranger’, as far as they are concerned every child exists to be played with and every grown up exists to give hugs and kisses to (and beg food from). My 1st climbed my kitchen drawers like a ladder the day after he learned to crawl, at 6 months. And my 2nd was walking everywhere at 9 months (thankfully she waited on the climbing til recently, but at 15 months she can now handle ladders by herself, ugh!) Strong wills and athletics run in the family though so I knew what I was getting myself into :) and was well prepared via *lots* of babysitting and nanny work prior to my own. Still, somedays it certainly tries the patience! (Tonight while I was putting the baby to bed my toddler turned his movie off, turned on the WII, put his favorite game in, switched the tv input, and then came and got me begging “play mario with me”. He likes to watch us play. We’ve never taught him any of that, he’s just watched us do it. Too clever by half!) Thanks for the blessing, I’ll certainly need it.
All I’ve read here are examples of instinctive reactions and behaviors in the pre-born. Nothing of cognition.
If they were instinctive reactions to stimuli, they’d be uniform for the same stimuli among all gestating humans. They’re not.
This is Reality inserting fingers in ears going “la la la, I can’t hear you!”. Quite a frequent happening these days among pro-abortionists. That’s another reason our side continues to win. For most individuals, “la la la, I can’t hear you.” is not an adequate rebuttal to an ultrasound video.
“If they were instinctive reactions to stimuli, they’d be uniform for the same stimuli among all gestating humans” – what absolute nonsense!
“That’s another reason our side continues to win.” – not while your ‘facts’ are as accurate as claiming that obama has three autobiographies.
Oh yeah, buddy. You know that dictionary, full of nonsense. 9_9
Two autobiographies. Still before he even did anything. Not that anything post-POTUS has been great anyway. Nice to see you deflecting and changing the subject though. It just gives my statement credence. XD
Hi Xalisae. How are you doing? So glad to hear from you. I continue to pray for you, you are indeed a special young lady. You are so right about Reality who lives in Unreality or La la land but as Jespren, I, you and other prolifers know every child is a unique, distinct, human being before they are born but the most exciting thing is that every child is a gift. It is so great to love LIFE and precious babies born and unborn. I am thankful for ultrasounds confirming the truth and saving babies lives as well.
Go on then xalisae, show me where in a dictionary it says that instinctive responses to stimuli are uniform among all gestating humans.
So we are down to two autobiographies now? Two? And what is the title of the one which isn’t “Dreams from my Father”.
“Nice to see you deflecting and changing the subject though. It just gives my statement credence” – hah, you wish! After days of avoiding substantiating your claim of three autobiographies. 6_6